From: Arlen Cuss <celtic@...>
Date: 2008-04-27T09:17:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Typed ruby

------=_Part_2144_20434363.1209255421680
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Joe K <jkauzlar@hotmail.com> wrote:

> and useful for the sake of programmer sanity in general. Currently I
> document all of
> my methods and most of my variables with types, seeing no purpose to
> re-using variables for different purposes


I think programmer sanity is probably helped by not having such a `feature'.
Reusing variables for different purposes is not at all what [not] `typing'
is about, and as David suggested, you possibly mean class, not type.
(singleton methods/whatever-you-want-to-call-them, for example? are they
part of the type? or something else?)

The point of duck typing is that you don't need to/you shouldn't document
the 'types', seeing no purpose to restrict your definition of what's
considered valid input. Surely if the object responds in all the ways you
ask it to, it's fit for the task?

Arlen

------=_Part_2144_20434363.1209255421680--